Pages

Friday, December 14, 2012

Good Without God

The other day I had a Christian ask me “How can you be good
without god?” I asked him what he meant
by the question. His response was
“Without god, what keeps you from going out on a killing spree?” To be honest, I get questions of this nature
often. I get them on Twitter daily
(@logicalbeing if you’re into that sort of thing). More surprising to me is when I get them from friends and
family.

I want to address
questions of this nature without getting too much into the larger debate on the
source of morality. The reason I don’t
want to discuss the origins of morality or the objective/subjective nature of
morality is really quite simple. I
don’t think we need to do so to illustrate that they do not come from any
divine being.

If it is belief in god that is supposedly keeping us from
going on killing sprees, I think we can assume a few things. We can assume that the person posing the
question believes in the concepts of heaven and hell. I think it fair to say that the idea of eternal reward and fear
of eternal damnation plays a role in their morality.

I say this because of the way the question is phrased, “how can
you be good without god?” This implies
that it is the belief in god that is necessary for morality. In order to be moral, one must believe that
god exists, that this god has decreed what is moral and immoral, and is keeping
tabs on what humans are doing. The last
part is important. If god is not
keeping tabs, when why would he be a factor in what a believer does? If there is no reward or consequence, then
what does it matter what god thinks of our actions?

If the person assumed that god was simply the source of all
morality and was not keeping tabs on what I am doing, and the reward/punishment
for my actions was not real, then my being with or without god would be
irrelevant. I would argue that the system described above is not
morality at all. What see is a human
being behaving like one of Pavlov’s dogs or as a young child would view
morality. We can break it down simply
this way:

If person X does action A, they will get reward Y.

If person X does action not A, they will get punishment Z.

This is nothing more than making choices to get what you
want out of the deal. If the only
motivation a person has for not going on a killing spree is to get into heaven,
is this truly moral, or is it a self-serving action? If the only reason a person has for not going on a killing spree
is a fear of going to hell, is this truly moral, or is it a self-serving
action? I would argue that it is the latter
in both cases. Further, the reward for
doing the good deed is only for the person in question. This person is not acting with any sort of
altruism in mind. It is similar to a
young child doing something so that he or she will earn a cookie or not get
punished. It is similar to my dog
sitting when I ask her to do so in the hopes of getting a treat. Neither of these things is true adult
morality. Rather they are simply making
choices to fulfill one’s own needs. In
essence, they are gaming the system to get what they want, and not acting
morally at all. (More on the
self-serving nature of morality later).

Christian morality often falls into this category. Good deeds are done to please god and to
seek a reward. Bad deeds are not
carried out so as not to displease god and earn eternal damnation. Like a young child, this is not morality at
all. At best, it is following
directions that a deity laid out, at worst, it is acting dishonestly to get a
reward.

So what keeps me from going on a killing spree when I do not
believe a heaven or hell exists? The
answer is really rather simple. I think
that every human life has value. I believe
that killing another human being is the wrong thing to do, except in extreme
circumstances, like self-defense, and even then would certainly prefer to avoid
it. Why do I feel this way? I believe that much of morality is
self-serving. I believe that our
society will be most productive and produce the most happiness for the largest
amount of people if we do not go around killing people.

This will most certainly benefit me, as a
member of society. In this sense, my
morality is also self-serving. However,
unlike Christian morality, the reasoning for my choice does not solely benefit
me. It benefits all of society. I do not fail to go on a killing spree so
that I may be rewarded. Nor do I fail
to go on a killing spree out of fear of jail time/execution…it never even
enters my though process.

Furthermore, my moral actions often take place without
others noticing. Morality, I think is
best judged by looking at what a person does when no one is looking. Here is a simple example. Most of us would agree that it is usually
wrong to lie. There
are numerous times each day, where I could lie, no one would ever know that I
lied, and ….I tell the truth. To me,
this type of thing is true morality.
This cannot happen with Christian morality---ever. God is always there. His omniscience and omnipresence demands
it. So let me ask you, who is the more
moral person, the person who chooses to do the right thing knowing that no one
else will ever know or the person who chooses to do the right thing knowing
that god is watching?

In short, how can I be “good without god”? Because I care about other people, I care about
this planet, I want to see my community do well. All of this is much more easily facilitated when we behave
morally for completely natural and secular reasons. I want to you leave with a quote of mine:

"Any of you who do the same good work and the same good
deeds, without a hope for eternal reward or fear of punishment, without seeking
recognition from your fellow humans, you are a better and more moral person
than anyone doing so for religious reasons.”

Thanks for Reading,

--- John

Guest poster John Richards is the author of the popular atheist blog Reason Being, post written by him, images added by me. Follow his blog, and as he mentioned, he's also on Twitter, Twitter handle @logicalbeing.